Unit 6: International Regime Theories

Introduction

International regime theories (IRT) indicate that cooperation is possible in an environment in which there is no higher authority to enforce the nations to cooperate.

According to Keohane, regime theory is a theory for explaining and understanding the international cooperation intending the coordination and harmonization of interest among nations.

Hurrell argues that regime theories introduce the possibility of cooperation in an environment of anarchy in which sovereign states are struggling for power and interest.

The Concept of Regime

According to Rosecrance, regime is thought as a result of consent of states and the limited surrender for independent decision making authority.

Conca (1996) stated that regime can be defined in narrow and broader meanings. According to broader definition, it is understood as patterns of behaviors in international relations, whereas in narrow meaning, it can be defined as conditioning the behaviors of states consciously to realize collective goals, and can be seen as a specific version of international institutions.

Stein, defined the concept as comprising all international relations and all international interactions for a certain topic.

According to Krasner, regime can be described as explicit and implicit rules, norms, principles and decision making procedures related to a certain subject in international relations.

Keohane and Nye argue that regimes are regulations comprising of the rules, norms and procedures influencing behaviors and results.

Hedley Bull, defines the regimes as rules and institutions that regulate behaviors of individuals and states.

Hedley Bull, defines the regimes as rules and institutions that regulate behaviors of individuals and states.

Puchala and Hopkins state that regime is a conceptual framework to understand the behaviors of states and to explain the situation which couldn’t be explained before. In this sense, regimes both regulate and constrain the behaviors of states. Therefore, regimes can be both reasons and results determining and influencing the behaviors.

According to Young (1991: 93), regimes are social institutions and structures created to regulate the behaviors of states for a certain phenomenon. Like all other social institutions, they are supposed to influence and regulate the behaviors of states. Functional theories see regimes as more or less efficient responses to fixed needs. On the other hand, cognitive theories see them as conditioned by ideology and consensual knowledge and evolving as actors learn.

The Content and The Limits of International Regimes

International regimes may be formed in every field of subjects of international relations starting from security issues to environmental issues, and might comprise all international regulations and common standards, such as regimes related to seas, outer spaces, straits and rivers and other waterways as well as economic, financial and commercial subjects or even about diplomatic behaviors.

Regime is incentive for patterns of behaviors and common standards accepted by all states with full consent and without questioning. Therefore, there is no compulsion for regulations to be bilateral or multilateral. But not all bilateral regulations in a certain field with related parties can be called as regimes. In order to use the concept of regime or international regime, it should depend on established rules, common standards and mutual consent to form patterns of behaviors that are implicitly or explicitly accepted by related parties.

In fact, the concept of regime would cause the question of the limits of state sovereignty. Because states in many subjects would face some limitations of international regimes which constrain their sovereign rights, so they are blurred to determine the subjects either domestic or global in character.

International Regimes and Cooperation

International Regime Theories would be needed to reduce uncertainties in certain fields that states cannot control by unilateral initiatives. International regimes reduce and even prevent the unfair applications stemming from uncertainties and gaps in certain fields. As well, in the areas where regimes don’t exist, states intend to resolve the problem through power relations, and consequently weak and small countries have some disadvantages. On the other hand, if there is a regime in any field, this reduces the probability of conflict and provides the maintenance of the security and stability.

According to Keohane, “regimes are examples of cooperative behavior, and facilitate cooperation, but cooperation can take place in the absence of established regimes. In fact, Keohane pointed out that cooperation is mostly needed if there is inconsistency or conflict between interests of states, otherwise there would not be need to cooperate since states would pursue their similar policies in the same manner.

One of the basic presumptions of regime theories is that regulations in all fields among states would provide peace and security

Another important reason that leads to the formation of regimes is the multiplicity of interests of states as mentioned above. Therefore, if states don’t have common interests and/or states prefer the unilateral initiatives, then international regime would be impossible. For this reason, the areas of regime formation are probably either the areas (which are) out of authority of states, or the areas that unilateral regulations aren’t preferred by states.

In contrast to the presumptions that regimes would limit or reduce the autonomy of states, security regime through eliminating the uncertainties and security dilemma would increase state’s room to maneuver in certain areas even such as security issues. Similarly, in the field of transportation and communication, regimes would provide the opportunity to use their autonomy and power independently without any considerations.

In economic issues like payment regimes, price regulations, sharing international markets would increase their freedom or income, and provide an opportunity to control international market rather than limiting their autonomy. Recently, some regulations and regimes concerning market share and pricing in the communication sector would provide some advantages for states.

In addition to eliminating market defections and irregularities, international regulations would increase the economic productivity. International regimes would reduce the confusions about who are responsible and have the power to rule.

International regimes at the same time would play an important role to eliminate the obstacles for access to markets.

However, it can be stated that in certain conditions, states would not need to form a regime to coordinate their cooperation or eliminate the conflicts:

• Firstly, states wouldn’t need to form a regime, if they have opportunity to behave unilaterally without jeopardizing the interests of others.
• Secondly, if states having common interest could behave in the same manner, they don’t need an international regime.
• Finally, if the best strategy of one state is the better of the worst strategy of the others, then states would not need to establish a regime to act in the same way.

The Critiques of International Regimes

One of the critiques of IR is the acceptance of the states as the basic actors and ignorance of the non-state actors.

Another critique is that regime theory can only be applied to liberal states. But the defenders of this theory respond that all states, more or less at least for some issues, would need a regime in IR. There is also a critique about the assumptions of international regime theories set by functional theories.

They claim that functional theories are related to mutual interest but the regime theories are related to common interests. On the other hand, functional theories are intending to explain the relations between certain states in certain areas, in contrast regime theories are related to all community of states. In addition, contrary to regime theories, functional theories ignore the power relations among the states, and numerous initiatives for cooperation would reflect the interest of powerful states instead of weak and small states.